Slashdot Mirror
The Single Vigilante Behind Facebook's 'Real Name' Crackdown
Molly McHugh sends this story from Daily Dot:
When Facebook issued an apology this week for suspending user accounts that had what it alleged to be fake names, it pinned the whole debacle on one person. This "individual," Facebook reasoned, sewed confusion into its flawed reporting system—intended to protect against bullying and online abuse. Facebook Chief Product Officer Chris Cox explains that Facebook was caught “off guard” by a lone actor who reported “several hundred” accounts as fake. According to our source, who claims to have spent "hours and hours" systematically reporting Facebook users from the drag community and beyond, thousands of accounts were suspended—and they've been at it for weeks. ... Given the timing and the accounts suspended, they believe that they are in fact the mystery "individual" who threw a wrench into Facebook's system, noted in Facebook's explanation of the events. "Considering the hours and hours I spent reporting accounts over the course of the past month, it is likely that I am."
From the article:
"Oh no I'm very serious. Spent most of my time at work past 3 days reporting Queens."
Considering I spend my Friday midnight completing shellshock patches to keep this planet running ... Can we start firing people who are useless to the world in general?
I don't see what this person could have to gain from this other than just being a dickhead. Heaven forbid someone be different from what your approved normal is. What a pathetic jerk.
If applying your own laws is "throwing a wrench" perhaps your laws are the problem?
And yet, Facebook does nothing about obviously fake accounts, like Cheese Sandwich or the like. The problem is, people want to play the FB games, but they don't want to bother their real friends with the game messages, so the only solution is to have a "fake" account. FB should do something to allow for social gaming without mixing it into real socializing. Allow people to have a game account that is "fake", but can't post non-game-related items. They already separate game posts from real posts, it wouldn't be that difficult to do.
In the Gamer community this person would be known as a griefer, they enjoy nothing more than ruining things for others and while spend as many hours if not more doing so.
CAPTCHA: offends
Yes, the whackjob who made all these bogus reports is primarily responsible for this mess. I doubt anyone would argue that point.
But can we also recognize that fb screwed up by creating a "system" that was so pathetically easy to abuse? This is yet another example of an online entity with mountains of money that can't piss straight. thanks to their horrible mgmt, fb is the cancer of the Internet, or at least one of them.
The problem is not this guy nor Facebook's rules, but that the rules were enforced in a biased manner. This will always be a problem with only enforcing a rule after a report, because unpopular groups or individuals will be reported more often than the majority.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
This is not news and it certainly isn't news for nerds.
The abusing of an online social network to target individuals of a particular type is not news, especially for nerds? There were flaws in the reporting process. If each report about a fake name from person "A" was forwarded to the same handler, the pattern would have been apparent within hours. So, one flaw in the process, with a solution that all sites could implement.
If that's not practical, then have a method so that, when a new report is made, the reviewer sees the reporter's history. 200 reports within 3 days, all the same? Houston, we have a problem!
So, another summary could be "person exploited flaws in a social media site to target a specific group." Definitely news for nerds.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I apologize for the semi-offensive subject, but nothing else I tried was as accurate or clear.
There's no 'lone actor' or 'rogue account' forcing them to do this. This is THEIR OWN POLICY. Claiming someone else 'forced' them to do it is standard corporate/military/law enforcement weaseling. 'The officer's gun was discharged 30 times into the suspect.' Well darn, that poor officer with his gun going off like that and all.
Total damage control bullcrap.
Personnaly, I blame all the homophones lurking on the Internet. You know who you are! You can't hide from us!
Have gnu, will travel.
I like to sew confusion into a jacket, then walk through a crowd wearing it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
First, they came for our real names... and I said nothing, because I don't use my real name...
What's troubling is the fact that no one at Facebook contemplated the possibility that this policy would be used as a form of bullying. Their aribtrarily-enforced rules about nudity are routinely used the same way by homophobes, who go around reporting innocuous photos (and even illustrations) of partial male nudity or even just gay couples kissing or showing affection, causing headaches, suspensions, and even bans of gay people from the site. And they do so with complete impunity because they can do so anonymously, and there is no penalty for false reports. The users who are reported are given no right to challenge their accusers (or even know who they are), and effectively no right to appeal. Facebook's own policies and procedures facilitate and empower this kind of harassment and abuse. And they're just now noticing?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
It is facebook's pointless, unfair, side-effect prone, and essentially pinheaded "real name" policy that is the problem. Without the policy, the problem would not exist (and people who would have otherwise not had to reveal their real names could be a lot safer on the site.)
But that's the nature of the beast. They're selling you to advertisers, and they can do whatever they want with you. Any idea you had about the site being about you is laughably off-base. What it is, is bait for you. They'll do what they need to do to attain and maintain critical mass for their actual customers (advertisers), and not one thing more.
The citizens are, by and large, far too dimwitted to move to a network where they *are* the focus. And so it goes.
At the core of the problem has always been Facebook's real name policy, plus the way they handle complaints by users against users. Reporting people violating Facebook's policy to Facebook isn't vigilantism; the responsibility for the policy and its enforcement still lies entirely with Facebook.
Although as a private institution, they can do what they want, maybe voluntarily respecting principles that work well in public life, namely free speech and due process, would perhaps be a good policy?
They claim it is to curtail "cyber-bullying" (AKA- Trolling). There is no reason they can't show aliases instead of real names while still requiring real names to sign up. Even Google is seeing that this option is better than the real name policy they used to have.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Facebook "users" are a product being sold. Real names allow Facebook to better monetize their user database by enabling correlation with other big data vendors like Acxiom. Once they have a complete profile of who you are and the entire details of your life, it is much easier to implement targeted ads. Fake names are useless for making them money.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
The problem is, in fact, with Facebook's rules. Facebook did not recognize that a class of persons, that they would have been better off providing protection for, strongly identified with a name other than their legal name.
The rules were not enforced in a biased manner, but in a blind manner.
What you want is a compensatory bias to be applied after a report. That's not unbiased enforcement.
I'm truly sorry you chose to make that post anonymously. Spot on, and amusing at the same time. I would have enjoyed making sure I took special note of future postings if I knew who you were. Well, kudos anyway. :)
The rush to "do" underlies a great deal of our problems from incompatible OS upgrades, bugs left behind to fester, the rug being yanked out from under previously working applications, and functionality going missing -- or crazy -- or sideways -- in existing user applications. There are methodologies that can resolve all of these things the vast majority of the time, but very few software developers at any level use them. Much harm results.
<RANT>
Primary among them, NEVER remove or change the stated design behavior of an existing function. If you have a better idea, add a new function with a new stated design behavior. Leave the previously existing one alone; if necessary, point out that it won't work with "new stuff", if indeed that is the case. Then stop. If an already existing function is not behaving as the stated design behavior says it should, change it until it does.
Pro tip: If "upgrading", if whatever "enhancements" you created make something stop working or degrades how it works in an existing application that used the function according to its stated design intent, it's about 1000000:1 that it's your fault AND that you shouldn't have done whatever you did.
It doesn't matter if you're an OS programmer, an application programmer, a PD library maintainer, or what. If and when you screw up existing stated design behavior, you have not created an "upgrade", you have created a "fuckyougrade" and somewhere, someone, or more likely many someones, are contemplating dragging you through a fire ant hill after dousing you with some other ant hill's characteristic pheromones.
</RANT>
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Been a long time since we had beers and talked about the burden of having an apostrophe in our names. look me up some time. Sincerely, Help I'm trapped in a driver's license factory.
There are people in Western culture who have problems too.
Like royals with only first names. Quite often a long row of them, but still no last name.
Then there are native Americans. Thoroughly Westernized, but with names like As The Owl Flies one risks being called "Mr. Flies", and get letters with "Hi, As"
Then there are systems that only allow a small subset of pre- and postfixes. They allow III but not IV, so those who have the same name as their father, grandfather and great-grandfather end up as Mr. Iv.
Personally, I've found that having a two word last name is enough to confuse many systems.
Then there are addresses. Contrary to what American programmers think, not everyone of the Western world has a street number.
In many places, if you live in a small town or in a well known building or farmstead, there is no street number.
The only sane thing to do is to let people enter their name and address the way that's correct for them. If you need to contact them, also have them fill in the correct forms of address. Then Sir William, Lord Pembroke can get his mail sent to Wilton House, Wilton, Salisbury SP2 0BJ, UK, and be addressed as "Pembroke" or "Montgomery".
And Teller won't get letters saying "Hi, Na" or "Dear No F. N. Teller".
I hate to say this, but this is a classic war of good versus evil. The good people have been trying to live their lives, but also not allowing hate speech to be spread about them. The bad is the people who spew the hate and who have had their hate groups shut down because they were reported, rightfully so as spewing hate. Seems like the evil side found a easy way to retaliate. :(
But there was no abuse. The fake name policy was changed after they found it impacted a set of people. It's like admonishing a cop for writing too many speeding tickets on a road before the speed limit had been raised. The only pattern that should have been recognized was a lot of speeders on that road and of course the action needed was to raise the speed limits. This is the same with facebook. The guy reporting, regardless of his motivation, was following policy and the pattern that eventually showed was that some people of a certain nature seemed to all the sudden become singled out. Of course the answer was to raise the speed limit- allow the names.
Harping on a single person reporting something that was against the rules is a bit ridiculous. The only flaw was in not having their rules already account for the groups they decided were privileged enough to not have to follow.
Obviously the current system in which individuals with ideological axes to grind can negatively impact communities where people don't go by their legal names. However, it's not obvious what the right rule should be. Of course I think you should be able to use psuedonyms, nicknames, stage names etc.. etc.. on facebook but how do you deal with facebook identity theft.
So I have Jane Mary Tyler Doe. I go create a facebook account pretending to be her and, if she isn't a huge celebrity, it wouldn't be too hard to convince a large number of people (probably anyone not already friends with the real individual) that I'm really Jane Mary Tyler Doe. I can then use that account to make her look like a racist, ruin relationships with coworkers and potential employers etc.. etc... unless my fake account can be suspended quit quickly. Alright how can facebook do this.
1) A real names policy. True, this has all the bad consequences above but it allows them to immediately suspend accounts but isn't vulnerable to serious DOS type attacks since a since credit card transaction or the like can quickly confirm someone's legal name and prevent any false impersonation accusation from ever causing another suspension. Given the low probability that someone with the same name wants to engage in the impersonation facebook has enough human hours to evaluate these rare situations in reasonable detail.
But this undermines an essential purpose of facebook. To let people present themselves online to the same people they know offline meaning stage names, nicknames etc.. etc..
2) A no impersonation rule. Alright now someone asserts the account Jennifer Doe is impersonating her. What can facebook do? If the suspend the existing account things are even worse since instead of creating a fake account someone with ill-intent asserts that the current account holder is an imposter gets their account suspended and now controls the only account representing itself to be Jennifer Doe's. Given the size of facebook they simply can't stop anyone from creating any new account with that name and the impersonator could create an account Jen Doe.
The very fact that people are allowed to use names other than their legal names means there is no good heuristic to see who is likely the deliberate imposter. After all Jennifer Doe might be the name she goes by in school but the name on her birth certificate could well be Bertha Jennifer Doe and Jennifer might not even appear on things like credit cards meaning facebook doesn't even have a good guess as to the imposter.
Also this creates the possibility of a DOS attack against any account (keep claiming it is an imposter account from accounts). If facebook eventually stops viewing such imposter accusations as real then any imposter who gets their before the real user can simply launch a bunch of accusations of imposterization at themselves until they insulate themselves against any accusation from the person they are actually impostering (after all they can be a perfectly legit Jennifer Doe account then change their picture and other details later to impersonate a target).
----
What they should do is basically implement a web of trust style infrastructure. Facebook can start occasionally asking people who frequently message or are listed as close friends whether the person they talked to or the person with that email address really went to school such and such. Also friend requests should include a couple of selected bits of public info (like email address and the like) which, would hopefully make impersonization more difficult.
Ultimately, however, facebook needs to have a attestation system akin to key signing. You get your close friends to attest that the person whose picture and details appear in the facebook account really controls the account. Details will be a pain in the ass but it's the only plausible way since impersonization is a matter of details like schools, pictures etc.. etc.. not real names and facebook just can't check those themselv
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
""This "individual," Facebook reasoned, sewed confusion""
Might he just be using a needle and thread to sew the garments rent in the sowing of such discontent.
Personally, I've found that having a two word last name is enough to confuse many systems.
You should see the violence and mayhem that an individual with the name A O (first name A, last name O) wreaks upon an HMO patient data file system for which some long-departed pre-millenial programmer decided there should be a three-character minimum for the combined name field.
But there was no abuse. The fake name policy was changed after they found it impacted a set of people. It's like admonishing a cop for writing too many speeding tickets on a road before the speed limit had been raised.
This is like admonishing a cop who knowingly wrote tickets at a place where the speed limit sign was obviously wrong, where following the speed sign would have caused traffic chaos and going at the higher speed made everything run smoothly and safe.
There are other royal/noble families than the British ones.
And in some cases their names can very well be something like Charles Robert XII of the grand dutchy of Backwoodsia where "Charles" is the "middle" name inherited from some great great uncle, Robert is the first name and the XII is because there were 11 previous nobles/kings with that title who were also named Robert and "of the grand dutchy of Backwoodsia" isn't actually a last name but a title.
This person then gets to choose between "Mr, Ms, Mrs and Dr" for titles and is required to enter "first name" and "last name".
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Nice jacket. You ever check out a Technicolor Dream Coat?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If they are part of Western culture, even those royals have family names just as the English royals do. Just because you do not know it, and the media don't use it, does not mean that it does not exist. I just went down the list of current sovereign monarchs of the world. The only ones which do not have family names associated with them are the monarchs of Andorra because that role is filled by the current President of France and the current Bishop of Urgell as co-Princes.
So, you are mistaken. It is harder to track down everyone with a noble title, but the same holds true there. Every noble family has a family name (that family name may derive from the territory they rule/used to rule, but it is a family name nonetheless).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I like to sew confusion into a jacket, then walk through a crowd wearing it.
Instead, sow doubt in the public's confidence in its own grammar.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
If they are part of Western culture, even those royals have family names just as the English royals do. Just because you do not know it, and the media don't use it, does not mean that it does not exist.
Pray, tell - what is the last name of HRH King Harald of Norway?
He signs Harald Rex, or these days Harald R. - presumably to avoid getting letters to Mr. Rex.
Royals have family names (and these have nothing to do with their titles).
In the case of the British monarchy, it's "Windsor".
Shit, I'm not even a Brit, and I knew that.
You're confusing family name with House. This is a problem because nobility can belong to more than one house.
Many of the British royals belong to the House of Windsor, but their name isn't Windsor, any more than HRH Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece having a last name of neither Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg nor Oldenburg - the two houses to which he belongs.
So... What's this lone actor's real name? :)
Indeed, like me, most Dutch people are known as "Mr/Mrs Van" in foreign correspondence.
Presumably some "Mr/Ms de" too.
And these days, more than a few Ibn, Bin and Al folks too, I should think.
Where I hail from, the last name is often the name of the farmstead. And they often have qualified names like "North Hill", "Lower Pond" or "Large Valley Farm".
Add that it's not uncommon to combine the names of your mother and father, or for women, keep your old name and tack the new last name to the end.
And finally, interject patronymics.
So you can end up with full names like "Daisy Franksdaughter North Hill Lower Pond Large Valley Farm", and that's with no middle names.
The "short forms" could be either of "Daisy Franksdaughter" or "Daisy Large Valley Farm" depending on context.
Someone else might be named "John John Johnson Johnson Johnson".
Truly, the only sane solution is to let people enter their own names and desired forms of address free-form.
Well, a quick Google search for "current royalty of Europe" results in a link to this Wikipedia page, which tells us that Harald the Fifth of Norway is from the House of Glucksburg, which means that his last name is Glucksberg. So, as I said, just because you do not know it, does not mean that he doesn't have one.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The best way to show a flawed policy is to force them to actually enforce the policy. Too often we enabled flawed policies and rules to flounder because we ignore them or find ways around the policy. If you want to change the policy, enforce the policy. For too long, Facebook's real name policy has been indiscriminately enforced. Many users persist for years with obviously fake names, while other people feel the full force of the policy, usually those in discriminated groups. This happens all the time in real life, where enforcing agencies will selectively enforce policies or laws on targeted groups. Selective enforcement of the law can be illegal as it runs counter to the equal protection act and 14th amendment, and corporations need to be careful that they don't run afoul those in discriminatory business practices.
When a problem affects a small portion of a majority, you run into the "somebody, everybody, anybody, nobody" situation. "Somebody should fix this. Anybody can fix this. Everybody knows it should be fixed. So it ends up being the job of Nobody." This eventually devolves into the attitude that "since this affects the majority, it's the government's job to fix it." I call this the "complacency of the majority."
When a minority group is affected, they *know* that if they don't stand up and speak out, nothing's going to change. The majority may not notice there's a problem, since it doesn't affect them, or they may be reasoning "If you can't be arsed to do something about this, and it directly affects you, why should I bother?"
That's why most social change in society originates with minorities - the majority sees no urgent reason to change things that work for them. Two examples: The driver didn't say to Rosa Parks "Madame, you look tired, why don't you just set down here in the front of the bus?" and it was only after AIDS became recognized as a problem for heterosexuals that the majority took note and put real resources into the fight. I'm sure you can think of more.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:Grammar Nazi Objects!
You have clearly discriminated against the Spelling Nazis by not mis-spelling "grammar". No wonder you posted anonymously :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Research some! The surname was changed from the German name in order to defuse ambivalence in regards to the family being German. The surname is Windsor.
I doubt the Queen has any problems being recognised and if she chose to sign as "The Queen", nobody would complain, her sicophants would just rush around and make sure whatever she she used carried legal weight.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The way to get around the negative effects of the real name policy is to register your real name, but using a different alphabet than the Latin one. Facebook allows you to submit your name using whatever alphabet you want. I.e., if you have a Japanese name, you are allowed to submit it in the Latin alphabet. If you have an English name, you are allowed to submit it in the Arabic alphabet. I submitted mine in the Greek alphabet, because that was easiest to get the correct transliteration in.
No, the Principal House is not the same as a surname. A person can belong to multiple royal houses (and often do, due to the intermarriage between royal houses). And many have a different surname while belonging to a house.
The principal house Harald V of Norway belongs to is Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluecksburg. He's also a direct descendant of Queen Victoria, and thus of the Oldenburg house. But Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluecksburg is not his name. Neither is Oldenburg. Never was, and never will be.
The only "full name" that would make sense for him would be to add the patronymical, Harald V Olavson. But he has never used it - he signs "Harald R", the R standing for Rex.
It doesn't matter if the cop thought it was right or wrong. If it is posted, you have notice of the limit. The rest of your post is exagerated hyperboly that doesn't really fit the situation.
Research some yourself. That's the House name that was changed, not the surname.
The British branch of the House Saxe-Coburg and Gotha became the House of Windsor. Neither is a last name - it's the monarch's ducal name.
That said, by royal decree, the descendants of Elizabeth II who are not mononymic princes or princesses, are to have the last name of Mountbatten-Windsor. Like the Queen's grandson, Viscount Severn, James Mountbatten-Windsor.
His cousin is Prince William, with no last name unless you count his current duchy, Cambridge, or the name he used during military service, William Arthur Philip Louis Wales. When not being either the Duke of Cambridge or the son of the Prince of Wales, I expect he can be named William Mountbatten-Windsor.
In neither case is the last name "Windsor".
First, as a descendant of Victoria, he would be a member of the House of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, since that is the House of all of Victoria's descendants because that was the House of her husband. Second, he would only be a member of that House if he was so descended on the male side. Finally, it is well established that in situations where royals need a surname, the answer I gave would be his surname. So, while as King, he does not have a surname, Glucksburg would be the surname of all of his children who do not have royal titles.
As a result any database in which he was entered that required a surname would list his surname as Glucksburg. However, as king there are few such databases in which he would be entered.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If the self appointed RealNamePolice hadn't made such a stink, ello wouldn't have gone viral. Suddenly facebook, a company I loathe and despise and use only with fake names, has competition. I haven't seen their service, but ello have a good manifesto, and plan to use a business model where their end-users are customers rather than assets. Facebook has achieved a degree of critical mass they've been using to revert the internet to AOL. Unless an open distributed social networking protocol emerges (unforunately, Diaspora wasn't able to make it happen), someone has to run the backbone of social networking, and I'd rather it wasn't Facebook.
So thank you RealNamePolice, not for being a dork harrassing Drag Queens, but for stirring up 30,000 Facebook users an hour to go somewhere else.
minds, get scrambled like eggs, abused and erased. Hard Hearted Alice is who you want to see.
People might complain, if they knew. It's happened. Such complaints have even led to expensive litigation and ultimately informed the present UK federalism arrangement.
tl;dr it's not as simple as calling herself what she wants whenever she wants, but also nobody in any government would refuse a reasonable plan to make a change of style.
I'll restrict myself here to UK law. Laws of other countries apply to her use of styles in contexts relating to them (such as when she is physically visiting them), as well.
Formally, styles of address are the personal prerogative of the reigning monarch, and she has been delegated by Parliament the full right to style herself as she sees fit under the Royal Titles Act (1953). Exercising the prerogative _lawfully_, however, would require her to at least inform the government and have the matter Gazetted.
The statute (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/9) clearly gave her the right to style herself reasonably, and that statute is probably not exhausted (there is a plausible argument that the delegated authority ceased to exist upon first use, and another that the agreement has expired because half the governments no longer share the same monarch and New Zealand introduced its own _conflicting_ statutes including the Royal Titles Act (1974, New Zealand)).
However, even if the statute is fully valid, the government-of-the-day can technically insist that she not use the delegated prerogative without formal advice from a minister. It is likely that both the department of constitutional affairs at the Ministry of Justice (which has among other things formal responsibility for policy relating to the Royal Household, the personal representatives of the monarch, and "non-delegated" royal and ecclesiastical prerogatives) and the Foreign Office (since there is still a personal union of the crowns of several independent countries) would push hard to exercise the right to give formal advice. On the other hand, most governments would simply rubber-stamp any reasonable change quickly, or even retroactively, and arrange its publication. That's important since judicial scrutiny of personal prerogatives can (and sometimes does) happen and a "slip up" by the monarch could in principle expose the government to substantial liability.
(A concrete example is in MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396, 1953 SLT 255 which was a case decided under Scottish Law involving the current monarch's choice to style herself Elizabeth II. The courts found, essentially, that the monarch had acted lawfully in styling herself Elizabeth II, and the decision refers to minutes and letters by government ministers endorsing her name(s), that the supporting statute was valid with respect to MacCormick & Hamilton's claim, and that her regnal name was widely published, and in particular was Gazetted here https://www.thegazette.co.uk/L... -- note that "Published by Authority" means by the authority of the government, not the monarch, and "with the advice of our privy council" means that there was a formal consultation with the government.
MacCormick was a Scottish Nationalist lawyer and Rector of the University of Glasgow, and raised the matter as a point of interesting differences in Scottish and English constitutional and administrative law; Hamilton is a well known Scottish Nationalist lawyer; both were trying to establish that Scotland had the right to be consulted on matters of personal prerogative. In effect, although they lost this particular case, their ideas are now entrenched in devolution law -- a change to the monarch's style would almost certainly have to be supported by an Act of the Scottish Parliament. In particular, MacCormick was specifically referenced in the parliamentary debates leading to paragraphs (1) and (2) of Part I of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act (1988) -- it is likely that in litigation in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the monarch's style